Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Subject : Oops while modprobing phy fixed module
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/14/63
Last known good : ?
Submitter : Gabriel C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caused-By : Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
commit
Cosmetic changes. This is taken from Jens' zero-length barrier patch.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
block/ll_rw_blk.c |5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: work/block/ll_rw_blk.c
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
This is taken from Jens' zero-length barrier patch.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
block/ll_rw_blk.c | 63
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them in the upstream
branch. Will do so and add your signed
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod().
Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod
Jens Axboe wrote:
somewhat annoying, I'll see if I can prefix it with git-daemon in the
future.
OK, now skip the /data/git/ stuff and just use
git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git
Alright, it works like a charm now. Thanks.
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:39:41 EDT, Ric Wheeler said:
All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss, it
is a
promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent storage). You
don't
need to ask this kind of array to drain the
Ric Wheeler wrote:
Don't those thingies usually have NV cache or backed by battery such
that ORDERED_DRAIN is enough?
All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss,
it is a promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent
storage). You don't need to ask
Hello, Jens.
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, May 28 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
I think the implementation priorities here are:
1/ implement a zero-length BIO_RW_BARRIER option.
2/ Use it (or otherwise) to make all dm and md modules handle
barriers (and loop?).
3/ Devise and implement appropriate
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
Jens Axboe wrote:
Would that be very different from issuing barrier and not waiting for
its completion? For ATA and SCSI, we'll have to flush write back cache
anyway, so I don't see how we can get performance advantage
Hello,
Jens Axboe wrote:
Would that be very different from issuing barrier and not waiting for
its completion? For ATA and SCSI, we'll have to flush write back cache
anyway, so I don't see how we can get performance advantage by
implementing separate WRITE_ORDERED. I think zero-length
[ cc'ing Ric Wheeler for storage array thingie. Hi, whole thread is at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.device-mapper.devel/3344 ]
Hello,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but when you consider the self-contained disk arrays it's an entirely
different story. you can easily have a few gig of
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:26:45AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote:
IOWs, there are two parts to the problem:
1 - guaranteeing I/O ordering
2 - guaranteeing blocks are on persistent storage.
Stefan Bader wrote:
2007/5/30, Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stefan Bader wrote:
Since drive a supports barrier request we don't get -EOPNOTSUPP but
the request with block y might get written before block x since the
disk are independent. I guess the chances of this are quite low since
Hello,
Neil Brown wrote:
1/ A BIO_RW_BARRIER request should never fail with -EOPNOTSUP.
This is certainly a very attractive position - it makes the interface
cleaner and makes life easier for filesystems and other clients of
the block interface.
Currently filesystems handle -EOPNOTSUP
Hello, Neil Brown.
Please cc me on blkdev barriers and, if you haven't yet, reading
Documentation/block/barrier.txt can be helpful too.
Neil Brown wrote:
[--snip--]
1/ SAFE. With a SAFE device, there is no write-behind cache, or if
there is it is non-volatile. Once a write
17 matches
Mail list logo
